The applicant has come up with a case that he had given six cheques to non applicant no.2 as and by way of security for hand loan, which the applicant had borrowed from non applicant no.2 It is also the case of the applicant that the said amount was repaid and the said six instruments were demanded back. The evidence on record does not make out a case in that behalf. If at all the applicant had repaid sum of Rs. 20,000/- there could have been some documentary evidence to show that the applicant had repaid Rs.20,000/-. There is no 12
document to show that the applicant had repaid Rs. 20,000/-. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had demanded the said cheques in writing. In substance, the case of the applicant that loan amount was repaid and the cheques were demanded back cannot be accepted. It is also required to be mentioned that at one stage, it was contended by applicant that cheques were lost. Except taking the said stand no efforts were made to prove the said stand before the Court. The applicant has not stepped into witness box. If it was the case of the applicant cheques were lost, he should have entered the witness box, given details and other particulars to show as to when the cheques were lost. If it was to the knowledge of the applicant that the said cheques have been lost, he should have issued "stop payment" orders to the said society. Nothing has been done in that behalf. In substance, the stand taken by applicant before this Court in this behalf cannot be accepted.
Bombay High Court
Rafique Raheman Shaha vs Unknown on 26 August, 2009
Bench: R.Y. Ganoo